| 1. |
- Link, Heike, et al.
(författare)
-
Cost allocation Practices in the European Transport Sector
- 2008
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This deliverable D1, Cost Allocation practices in the European Transport Sector, is one of two reports from WP1 - State of the art methodology and survey of existing practice. It summarises the existing practice of cost estimation and cost allocation in all modes of transport. Its purpose is to identify gaps and open issues in allocation methods which currently prevent the use of marginal cost figures in pricing, and to analyse the methodological background of available studies. As the whole CATRIN project, the focus is on infrastructure costs, e.g. on the costs of providing, maintaining, renewing and operating infrastructure. The second deliverable from WP1 provides the internal blueprint for the case studies to be conducted in CATRIN.
|
|
| 2. |
- Link, Heike, et al.
(författare)
-
Infrastructure
- 2005. - 1
-
Ingår i: Measuring the Marginal Social Cost of Transport. - : Elsevier. - 0762310065 - 9780762310067 ; , s. 49-84
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 3. |
- Link, Heike, et al.
(författare)
-
Internal blueprint for case studies
- 2008
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The report highlights four important tasks for CATRIN. o To provide more evidence on the relationship between marginal cost (MC) and average cost (AC), i.e the cost elasticity. Ultimately this relationship will define the rate of cost coverage from marginal cost based charges. o To improve the knowledge on the shape of the cost curve (decreasing versus increasing). The shape of the MC curve will define the MC based price and rate of cost coverage for infrastructure with different levels of traffic demand and thus explain regional differences. o To increase the knowledge of marginal cost in relation to different vehicle types. For this differentiation the CATRIN case studies include a meta-analysis of engineering experience in the field of infrastructure deterioration. o To improve the comparability of results between different studies and ensure a clear classification of cost items included. An important characteristic of research on marginal cost estimation for infrastructure is the lack of sufficiently detailed data on the cost of maintaining, operating and renewing transport infrastructure as well as on the use of infrastructure across all modes of transport. It appears that for applying state-of-the-art estimation methods, researchers have to allocate a considerable bulk of time and resources to collect this type of data. This will also hold true for the CATRIN case studies. While a general improvement of the data situation is a task for the administrations in the sector and cannot be subject of a research project like CATRIN, the CATRIN case studies have to anticipate this problem and should care for a thorough documentation of data collection including a precise definition of the type of data collected.
|
|
| 4. |
- Marina, Neyssa M., et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of MAPIE versus MAP in patients with a poor response to preoperative chemotherapy for newly diagnosed high-grade osteosarcoma (EURAMOS-1) : an open-label, international, randomised controlled trial
- 2016
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - 1470-2045. ; 17:10, s. 1396-1408
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background We designed the EURAMOS-1 trial to investigate whether intensified postoperative chemotherapy for patients whose tumour showed a poor response to preoperative chemotherapy (≥10% viable tumour) improved event-free survival in patients with high-grade osteosarcoma. Methods EURAMOS-1 was an open-label, international, phase 3 randomised, controlled trial. Consenting patients with newly diagnosed, resectable, high-grade osteosarcoma aged 40 years or younger were eligible for randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either postoperative cisplatin, doxorubicin, and methotrexate (MAP) or MAP plus ifosfamide and etoposide (MAPIE) using concealed permuted blocks with three stratification factors: trial group; location of tumour (proximal femur or proximal humerus vs other limb vs axial skeleton); and presence of metastases (no vs yes or possible). The MAP regimen consisted of cisplatin 120 mg/m2, doxorubicin 37·5 mg/m2 per day on days 1 and 2 (on weeks 1 and 6) followed 3 weeks later by high-dose methotrexate 12 g/m2 over 4 h. The MAPIE regimen consisted of MAP as a base regimen, with the addition of high-dose ifosfamide (14 g/m2) at 2·8 g/m2 per day with equidose mesna uroprotection, followed by etoposide 100 mg/m2 per day over 1 h on days 1–5. The primary outcome measure was event-free survival measured in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00134030. Findings Between April 14, 2005, and June 30, 2011, 2260 patients were registered from 325 sites in 17 countries. 618 patients with poor response were randomly assigned; 310 to receive MAP and 308 to receive MAPIE. Median follow-up was 62·1 months (IQR 46·6–76·6); 62·3 months (IQR 46·9–77·1) for the MAP group and 61·1 months (IQR 46·5–75·3) for the MAPIE group. 307 event-free survival events were reported (153 in the MAP group vs 154 in the MAPIE group). 193 deaths were reported (101 in the MAP group vs 92 in the MAPIE group). Event-free survival did not differ between treatment groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0·98 [95% CI 0·78–1·23]); hazards were non-proportional (p=0·0003). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (268 [89%] patients in MAP vs 268 [90%] in MAPIE), thrombocytopenia (231 [78% in MAP vs 248 [83%] in MAPIE), and febrile neutropenia without documented infection (149 [50%] in MAP vs 217 [73%] in MAPIE). MAPIE was associated with more frequent grade 4 non-haematological toxicity than MAP (35 [12%] of 301 in the MAP group vs 71 [24%] of 298 in the MAPIE group). Two patients died during postoperative therapy, one from infection (although their absolute neutrophil count was normal), which was definitely related to their MAP treatment (specifically doxorubicin and cisplatin), and one from left ventricular systolic dysfunction, which was probably related to MAPIE treatment (specifically doxorubicin). One suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction was reported in the MAP group: bone marrow infarction due to methotrexate. Interpretation EURAMOS-1 results do not support the addition of ifosfamide and etoposide to postoperative chemotherapy in patients with poorly responding osteosarcoma because its administration was associated with increased toxicity without improving event-free survival. The results define standard of care for this population. New strategies are required to improve outcomes in this setting. Funding UK Medical Research Council, National Cancer Institute, European Science Foundation, St Anna Kinderkrebsforschung, Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-Vlaanderen, Parents Organization, Danish Medical Research Council, Academy of Finland, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Semmelweis Foundation, ZonMw (Council for Medical Research), Research Council of Norway, Scandinavian Sarcoma Group, Swiss Paediatric Oncology Group, Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research, University College London Hospitals, and Biomedical Research Centre.
|
|
| 5. |
- Martin, Juan Carlos, et al.
(författare)
-
Allocation of infrastructure cost in the air transport sector
- 2008
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This report highlights the main results obtained in WP6 regarding the allocation of infrastructure cost in air transport sector. In this deliverable, it has been shown that there are important economies of scale in airport operations, and, thus, it can justify the current trend of capacity expansion programs observed in major hubs. For the year 2006, the range of estimated economies of scale varies between 4.36 and 1.23, with an average value of 1.75. A basic methodology was proposed in order to analyze the likely level of output at which the economies of scales would be exhausted. The industry's minimum efficient scale (MES) was calculated to be at 2.27 million ATM737. The most interesting conclusion to draw from this result is that, within the current technological frontier, the world's leading airports will continue to benefit from scale economies in the provision of infrastructure for air transportation and commercial activities until they reach between two or three times their current scales.
|
|
| 6. |
- Nash, Chris, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparing three models for introduction of competition into railways : is a Big Wolf so Bad after all?
- 2011
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This paper compares the experience of three European countries with long experience of competition in rail transport – Britain, Sweden and Germany. Britain is characterised by complete separation of infrastructure from operations, competition either for or in the market for the entire passenger network, open access for freight with two large operators and several smaller ones, strong regulation and careful attention to financial incentives. Sweden also has complete vertical separation, competitive tendering for all subsidised services, open access for freight and now also for commercial passenger services. Regulation, although now strengthened, is not as tight as in Britain. At the other extreme, Germany still has the dominant operator and the infrastructure company as subsidiaries to the same holding company, the regulator has had repeated disputes regarding their powers and – although there is some tendering of subsidised passenger services and open access for commercial passenger and freight – the incumbent still dominates the market. According to the general expectations of theoretical reasoning, we would expect the British approach to be the most successful in achieving an efficient, competitive rail system, with Sweden next and Germany least successful. But an examination of subsidy levels and trends in passenger and freight traffic finds that Germany has the slowest growth in public financial support for its railway as well as the lowest fares. Both Britain and Sweden have had faster growth in public financial support than Germany, although this has mainly been in infrastructure renewal and enhancement, and there has been debate as to the adequacy of current infrastructure spending in Germany. On most measures, Britain has lower absolute levels of financial support than Germany as well as faster traffic growth. Sweden clearly has much higher financial support, although this may be the result of low population density. Thus on balance it is not clear that the reform process has worked better in the other countries than in Germany, despite initial expectations. Further in depth research on the reasons for these changes in financial support and traffic levels would be needed to reach a more conclusive answer.
|
|
| 7. |
- Nash, Chris, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparing Three Models for Introduction of Competition into Railways
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. - Bath : University of Bath. - 0022-5258 .- 1754-5951. ; 47:2, s. 191-206
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper compares three European countries with long experience of competition in rail transport— Britain, Sweden, and Germany. Given the nature of the reforms undertaken, we would expect theBritish approach to be the most successful, with Sweden next and Germany least successful. But anexamination of subsidy levels and trends in passenger and freight traffic finds that Germany has theslowest growth in public financial support for its railway, as well as the lowest increase in fares. Whiletraffic growth is faster in the other countries, it is not clear that reforms there have provided bettervalue for money.
|
|
| 8. |
- Nash, Chris, et al.
(författare)
-
How to liberalise rail passenger services? : Lessons from european experience
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Transport Policy. - : Elsevier Ltd. - 0967-070X .- 1879-310X. ; 79, s. 11-20
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper studies the experience of Europe's three most liberalised railways - Sweden, Germany and Britain - in opening-up rail passenger services to competition by means of competitive tendering, and seeks to draw lessons for countries that are just starting the process, such as France. It also comments on experience of competition in the market in these and other countries (this form of competition has been taken furthest in other countries - notably Italy and the Czech Republic, as well as on a single route in Austria). The paper fills an important gap in the literature - that has so far focused on econometric modelling of the impact of rail reforms - by considering how competition can best be introduced in practice. This investigation is important and timely given the requirements of EU legislation (4th Railway Package)which will require competition to be introduced into passenger rail services (by 2020 for commercial services, and 2023 for public transport contracts) across the whole of the EU. It finds evidence that competitive tendering has helped increase demand for and reduce subsidies to the rail passenger sector, but that there are many decisions that have to be taken as to how it is to be implemented. Short gross cost contracts may work well for regional services where the tendering authority takes the lead in planning and marketing such services. If services where ticket revenue recovers a larger share of costs – “more commercial services” – are to be tendered, long net cost contracts may make more sense. An alternative is to leave them operated by the incumbent but with open access for competitors to enter the market. Two particular issues face countries starting on the liberalisation process. Firstly, if existing rolling stock is owned by the incumbent rather than the franchising authority or an independent company; that remains a major barrier to entry. The second is the position of existing staff. If new operators are required to take them on at existing wages and conditions; that is a barrier to improved efficiency, but for new operators to recruit their own staff may also be problematic, particularly where the pace of change is fast.
|
|
| 9. |
- Tittensor, Derek P., et al.
(författare)
-
A protocol for the intercomparison of marine fishery and ecosystem models : Fish-MIP v1.0
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Geoscientific Model Development. - : Copernicus GmbH. - 1991-959X .- 1991-9603. ; 11:4, s. 1421-1442
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Model intercomparison studies in the climate and Earth sciences communities have been crucial to building credibility and coherence for future projections. They have quantified variability among models, spurred model development, contrasted within- and among-model uncertainty, assessed model fits to historical data, and provided ensemble projections of future change under specified scenarios. Given the speed and magnitude of anthropogenic change in the marine environment and the consequent effects on food security, biodiversity, marine industries, and society, the time is ripe for similar comparisons among models of fisheries and marine ecosystems. Here, we describe the Fisheries and Marine Ecosystem Model Intercomparison Project protocol version 1.0 (Fish-MIP v1.0), part of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP), which is a cross-sectoral network of climate impact modellers. Given the complexity of the marine ecosystem, this class of models has substantial heterogeneity of purpose, scope, theoretical underpinning, processes considered, parameterizations, resolution (grain size), and spatial extent. This heterogeneity reflects the lack of a unified understanding of the marine ecosystem and implies that the assemblage of all models is more likely to include a greater number of relevant processes than any single model. The current Fish-MIP protocol is designed to allow these heterogeneous models to be forced with common Earth System Model (ESM) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) outputs under prescribed scenarios for historic (from the 1950s) and future (to 2100) time periods; it will be adapted to CMIP phase 6 (CMIP6) in future iterations. It also describes a standardized set of outputs for each participating Fish-MIP model to produce. This enables the broad characterization of differences between and uncertainties within models and projections when assessing climate and fisheries impacts on marine ecosystems and the services they provide. The systematic generation, collation, and comparison of results from Fish-MIP will inform an understanding of the range of plausible changes in marine ecosystems and improve our capacity to define and convey the strengths and weaknesses of model-based advice on future states of marine ecosystems and fisheries. Ultimately, Fish-MIP represents a step towards bringing together the marine ecosystem modelling community to produce consistent ensemble medium- and long-term projections of marine ecosystems.
|
|
